Report verdicts should attempt to clarify their rulings

The verdict for that case was:

And you’ve just seen what rules I think apply to this situation. It’s not that wearing armor is the rule break. Ultimately them leaving the secure area is the rule break. However, the requisitions form where they request a full set of armor, a primary weapon with attachments, and a secondary weapon suggests they had no intention to stay within the fob.

Had they stayed in the fob with all that gear on them, they probably wouldn’t even been noticed. It’s still out of character to be that geared up as a civilian, but the rule break was that they left the secure area.

1 Like